↓ Skip to main content

Responsabilidad por pérdida de oportunidad asistencial en patología oncológica maligna en la medicina pública española

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Responsabilidad por pérdida de oportunidad asistencial en patología oncológica maligna en la medicina pública española
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.05.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Sardinero-García, Andrés Santiago-Sáez, M. del Carmen Bravo, Bernardo Perea-Pérez, M. Elena Albarrán-Juan, Elena Labajo-González, Julián Benito-León

Abstract

The loss of chance in healthcare has been forcibly introduced in the adjudications pronounced in recent years. Our objective was to analyse the verdicts of guilt resulting from the loss of chance ordered by the Contentious-Administrative Court (i.e., in the public healthcare system), in which both the origin of the disease to be treated and the sequelae were oncological processes. We analysed 137 cancer-related court judgments from the Contentious-Administrative Court, which referred to the concept of loss of chance, issued in Spain up to May 2014. Of the 137 sentences, 119 (86.9%), were pronounced due to diagnostic error and 14 (10.2%) due to inadequate treatment. Since 2010, 100 sentences have been passed (73.0%), representing an increase of more than 170% with respect to the 37 (27.0%) ordered in the first six years of the study (from 2004 to 2009). Most of the patients (68.6%) died, predominantly from breast cancer and gynaecological cancer (24.1%), and gastrointestinal cancers (21.1%). These malignancies were the ones most often involved in the sentences. The litigant activity due to loss of chance in oncological processes in the public health care has significantly increased in the last years. The judgments were mainly given because of diagnostic error or inadequate treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 1 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Professor 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Psychology 1 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2016.
All research outputs
#21,157,205
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#31
of 52 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,852
of 319,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 52 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.